Author | Topic |

Location: Land of Oz
Registered: June 2004
|
Re: efi vs carby
|
Sat, 22 October 2005 10:26

|
 |
Hi,
Carbs are great. They look good, they sound good and they work good.
The biggest issue with carbs is you need to keep them tuned, and they're expensive to manufacture - with all those fiddly bits and gaskets etc. Also it takes someone with skill and time (and therefore money) to tune them.
If you got a well tuned carby set-up, especially if you got a venturi per cylinder, then your engine will work fine over the entire rev range. Carbs have been around since the birth of the petrol engine, and if your engine has flat spots or other issues 'cos of your carbs, then they're out of tune or not set-up properly.
Ultimately, EFI is easier and cheaper to manufacture and maintain. And that's the reason why cars have them now. Not because they're better or provide more HP than carbs. They work well and stay working well through the life of the engine, without requiring expensive periodic tune-ups.
Airspeed across the venturi isn't its weakness, rather, that's its strength and simplicity. While the engine turns and there's an atmosphere, the carby will work. Even when well out of tune they work - sure it may not be at the optimum for the engine, but they'll still deliver atomised fuel. Carbs are designed to deliver the proper fuel/air ratio from idle to max revs - it would be pointless if it didn't. Although their operating principle is simple, the modern automotive carb is a complicated piece of equipment. Proplerly designed, and tuned for the engine it is attached to, it will provide as good as operation as EFI.
I drive both a carby engined and an EFI engined car. Before the carbs were tuned the EFI car had the goods in response, idle and revving. Once the carbs were tuned on the other car, it's just as responsive as EFI. Most people wouldn't know the difference when driving a car whether it has carbs or EFI, unless the carbs are out of tune or the EFI setup is wrong.
Although automotive carbs may not be responsive when talking about temperature and pressure differences, the large aviation carbs that were attached to the aircraft of WW2 were designed to adjust to pressure and temperature, and they worked a treat. It's just that for your normal car and the normal driving habits of people, you don't need this extra complexity in your cars carbs. The temp/pressure variances for most driving conditions make bugger all difference to normal driving conditions.
The bottom line.... EFI is cheaper to make and maintain. That's why we have them. Carbs are more expensive and require periodic maintenance - that's why we don't have them now. Both deliver the goods just as well as each other. Again, I am talking about your average car and average driving habits.
seeyuzz
river
|
|
|
| Subject | Poster | Date |
 |
efi vs carby
|
Ribbo | Mon, 07 October 2002 02:03 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
EMP-2TG | Mon, 07 October 2002 02:43 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
Bill Sherwood | Mon, 07 October 2002 03:31 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
IRA11Y | Mon, 07 October 2002 04:25 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
Bill Sherwood | Mon, 07 October 2002 04:50 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
floody | Mon, 07 October 2002 05:17 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
Blown86 | Mon, 07 October 2002 05:29 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
GIN51E | Mon, 07 October 2002 05:32 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
floody | Mon, 07 October 2002 06:15 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
Norbie | Mon, 07 October 2002 08:24 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
gianttomato | Mon, 07 October 2002 10:18 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
RWDboy | Mon, 07 October 2002 06:41 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
GIN51E | Mon, 07 October 2002 08:27 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
Ribbo | Mon, 07 October 2002 08:21 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
SUPRAGTE | Mon, 07 October 2002 09:20 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
Grega | Mon, 07 October 2002 10:39 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
GIN51E | Mon, 07 October 2002 13:49 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
5KinKP60 | Mon, 07 October 2002 15:19 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
justcallmefrank | Tue, 08 October 2002 00:20 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
mrshin | Tue, 08 October 2002 00:34 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
thetoyman75 | Tue, 08 October 2002 00:39 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
mrshin | Tue, 08 October 2002 01:34 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
chrisss | Tue, 08 October 2002 09:18 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
Remedy | Tue, 08 October 2002 10:03 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
GIN51E | Tue, 08 October 2002 10:31 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
chrisss | Tue, 08 October 2002 11:24 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
rjenman | Fri, 21 October 2005 22:24 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
rjenman | Fri, 21 October 2005 22:25 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
hemi twofifteen turbo | Sat, 22 October 2005 01:29 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
Bill Sherwood | Sat, 22 October 2005 07:28 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
September_Squall | Sat, 22 October 2005 05:24 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
170bhp | Sat, 22 October 2005 08:03 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
oldcorollas | Sat, 22 October 2005 08:07 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
170bhp | Sat, 22 October 2005 08:15 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
river | Sat, 22 October 2005 10:26 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
170bhp | Sat, 22 October 2005 10:41 |
 |
Re: efi vs carby
|
170bhp | Sat, 22 October 2005 10:44 |
Current Time:
Fri Apr 18 08:00:54 UTC 2025 |
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.0046110153198242 seconds |